Debating guns laws in Colorado and the nation (2 letters)

I am strongly in favor of the gun control measures proposed by President Obama and those currently in the Colorado state legislature. I have noticed that the gun-rights letters to The Denver Post that I’ve read make no distinction between reasonable gun laws and banning all guns, and seem to be emotional reactions.

[media-credit name=”Daniel Petty, The Denver Post” align=”alignright” width=”270″][/media-credit] Members of the Colorado House debate four gun-control bills in the House chamber at the State Capitol in Denver on Feb. 15, 2013.

It is ironic that they also accuse those who want to prevent further killings of overreaction in view of their own fearful assumptions, which no one is suggesting. We don’t allow anyone to drive a car without passing a driver’s test, obtaining a driver’s license and paying for car registration, and we have speed limits for driving because driving can be dangerous. Why should guns be unregulated? More lives could be saved.

Annette Korslund, Denver

This letter was published in the Feb. 26 edition.

I find it a bit perplexing that those vehemently opposed to assault rifles and handgun magazines holding more than 15 rounds do not display the same apprehension about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, and other federal agencies acquiring enough bullets to shoot every American five times or conduct a 24-year war in Iraq (according to Feb. 8 investors.com article).

If magazines holding more than 15 rounds should be illegal, why aren’t those holding 10, or five, or two? What caliber would they prefer for these rounds? Shouldn’t it also be illegal to carry more than one magazine of the maximum allowable capacity? Oh, and why should cars have more horsepower than necessary to go the legal speed limits?

Joseph R. Ferri, Colorado Springs

This letter was published in the Feb. 26 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Annette Korslund in her letter compares the need to take a driving test, vehicle registration and speed limits as reasons why gun control is logical. One thing she fails to note is that having a firearm for defense is a Constructional Right protected in the Second Amendment. Driving on the other hand is a privilege and open to more regulations, taxes from registration to raise money, and other restrictions.

Lets look at the causes of violent crime, murder and mass murders and then seek real solutions that have a chance of working, not just ones to regulate law-abiding citizens.

RTDennis

Ranger guy: If having a firearm is a Constitutional (or Constructional) Right, then why are we not allowed to have a gun anywhere we want including airports, airplanes, courtrooms, etc.? Oh yeah, there are regulations against that. So we DO have regulations controlling guns just like we have regulations on driving. I see no difference

“Lets look at the causes of violent crime, murder and mass murders and then seek real solutions that have a chance of working, not just ones to regulate law-abiding citizens.”

The flaw in this statement is that today’s “law-abiding” citizen is tomorrow’s criminal and/or mass murderer. We may not be able to regulate criminals, but we CAN regulate “law-abiding citizens”.

GFRanger

RTDennis: No one said there can’t be reasonable laws on guns; sawed-off shotguns, automatic firearms, some locations have had restrictions for years. There was a ban from 1994-2004 on magazine size and some semi-automatic firearms but according to FBI crime information and other studies they did not prevent violent crime or mass murders like Columbine HS that happened during the ban. Using background checks to stop criminals and mentally disturbed people from getting guns would go a long way, but the checks are only as good as the information used to conduct the checks.As in the case of Aurora theater and Tucson Arizona shootings the information on the murderer’s mental condition were not reported so they passed background checks.

You also missed the point between a right and a privileged. Both can have restrictions, but God given rights like self-defense have a higher standard of what can be restricted and what is a legal issue as has been recently shown in US Supreme Court decisions dealing with the Second Amendment.

But then studies, logic, information, facts, or any other thing would probably not open a mind of an individual to look for solutions that have a chance of prevention when he feels that “today’s law-abiding citizen is tomorrow’s criminal and/or mass murder.” As a retired law enforcement officer of 30 years I find your statement not only a poor point of discussion, it insults millions of law-abiding citizens.

RTDennis

“…God given rights like self-defense have a higher standard…”
These rights mean nothing to people who don’t believe in God.

“…insults millions of law-abiding citizens.”
You mean those law-abiding citizens who don’t become criminals. All criminals were once “law-abiding citizens”. That’s a fact. So my statement should insult no one, but, If it does, so be it. I don’t mind insulting anyone if it results in saving lives.

GFRanger

From your comment I gather you believe that most law-abiding citizens become criminals. More to the point, your insults have about as much chance at saving lives as more gun laws have in stopping criminals and murders.

toohip

RTDennis, I think GFRanger has run out of comebacks, so he’s attacking you personally. Always a sign they’ve run out of “beliefs” and phony facts.
So GF, you’re not going to challenge our facts that virtually off of the mass murders and many murderers were first law abiding, reasonable gun owners, who acquired their weapons, legally, and would pass any background check? A killer fact (excuse pun) that the gun advocates can’t seem to dispute, but turn to mental illness as a cause, yet refuse to have mental illness background checks, because when the psychiatrists asks “why do you need a military style assault weapon with 100 round magazine,” an answer of “home defense,” just my sound. . . . “crazy?”

jayreadyjay

Well at least you are out in the open about it. Taking your position (at one time virtually all mass murderers and many murderers were first law abiding reasonable gun owners) that can only mean you are calling for a complete ban on guns for civilians. Does that correctly state your position?

Now I don’t see any proof to your contention that virtually all mass murderers and many murderers were first law abiding, reasonable gun owners. Do you have any proof that is a true statement? Or are you saying that this is intuitively obvious to the casual observer? Did they become non-law abiding citizens first and then buy or steal a gun?

RTDennis

Ranger Boy, show me where I said that I believe that most law-abiding citizens become criminals? That’s a rhetorical question. Of course I never did. You’re really stretching.

toohip

You need to read the attached article to this one about “gun trusts” and how they are used to “pass down” illegal weapons, including machine guns, sawed off shot-guns, silencers, etc.

So you ARE in favor of mental illness evaluation background checks for anyone who want’s to buy a gun? Think you could pass one, or some of the other usual suspects on this forum? Dare to dream! – but live to fear!

Dano2

God given rights like self-defense have a higher standard of what can be restricted

That’s good comedy!

The right to an assault weapon and hi cap mags is written on a stone tablet handed down from the clouds!

snort

Best,

D

jayreadyjay

Do you really want to stand by your statement that “We may not be able to regulate criminals, but we can regulate “law-abiding citizens?” Do you not see the flaw in your statement?

toohip

(jay, can’t see the forest for the trees! ;o)

RTDennis

Jay, you asked: Do you really want to stand by your statement that “We may not be able to regulate criminals, but we can regulate “law-abiding citizens?”
Actually, that’s a rhetorical statement. Of course I stand by it. What are you thinking?

Well, I guess I’m going to have to explain it to you, so here it goes. We call know that criminals often do not obey laws and regulations (that’s what makes them criminals) but “law abiding citizens” usually do obey them (that’s what makes them “law abiding citizens”). Criminals will usually find a way to get and keep guns regardless of the regulations, but “law abiding citizens”, doing what “law abiding citizens” do, will most of the time obey the regulations associated with obtaining and keeping guns. That’s why we can’t regulate criminals, but we can regulate “law-abiding citizens. Get it?

Since more people are killed by “law abiding citizens” with guns due to accidents, suicides, negligence, etc. than are killed by criminals,
we should be mostly concerned about regulating “law abiding citizens”. Criminals will do what they want to do regardless of the laws and regulations. Trying to regulate them would be like trying to herd cats.

peterpi

“Since more people are killed by ‘law abiding citizens’ with guns due to accidents, suicides, negligence, etc. than are killed by criminals, …”

RTDennis, you left out plain, old-fashioned, garden-variety murder.
Accord to fiction writer Sue Grafton (the “alphabet series” of crime novels, A is for Alibi, B is for Burglar, etc.), in the early 1980s, there were over 3,000 murders a year in California. 70% of those were committed by family members, associates, and acquaintances of the deceased.
Until that shot was fired, most of those people were “law-abiding citizens”.

jayreadyjay

I wasn’t going where you went, but I’ll show you where you are wrong anyway. You said “since more people are killed by ‘law abiding citizens’ with guns due to accidents, suicides, negligence’s, etc …we should be mostly concerned about regulating ‘law abiding citizens’” Here’s
the problem. Your statement is only true if you include suicides. If not your accidents (not sure what the difference would be between accidents and negligence) etc. is a less than 10 percent of the number of people killed by criminals. I don’t think you can include suicides in your numbers. Suicides in Colorado account for 75% of all the gun deaths, but only 48% of suicides are done with a gun. People take pills, hang themselves,
jump off buildings and bridges, etc. So if you think that you will cut down on the suicide rate by limiting the size of a magazine (normally they only use one bullet), I would beg to differ with you. If you took away all guns you would simply move the people intent on suicide and move them to a different method of killing themselves.

Where I was going when I asked the question is the fact that you were singling out “law abiding” citizens. When we talk about murders we know that blacks account for 51% of the murderers yet are only 13% of the population. If we would take away only black people’s guns we would certainly cut down the number of killings. Now I’m sure you would find this to be unacceptable because it would be racist. I agree. But it is more
defensible than deciding to take away the guns from everyone which appears to be your solution.

toohip

Unfortunately not everyone feels the 2nd amendment written by our founding fathers following an oppresive gov’t and war, was intended for the weaponry of today. But desperate measures call for desperate interpretations, and when that’s all you have to justify your weaponry, well it’s convenient. While the laws addressing automobiles have developed over time and continue to progress and change, the laws to own virtually any type of weaponry continue unchanged and unfettered.
OK, GF, if you want to look at the violent crime, murder, and mass murders, how many are committed by automobiles, bats, knives. etc. . compared to firearms? Almost everyone of the mass murders, were “law abiding citizens” who owned “legal weaponry” and decided to break the law. You will claim it’s a “mental illness” so you must be in favor of mental illness background checks before buying a gun, right? Got a response?

BigD

The argument that “almost everyone of the mass murders were ‘law abiding cintizens’ that decided to break the law” is silly. Every criminal ever in the history of the world (once laws were created) was a law abiding citizen that eventually decided to break the law. One could interpret your argument as saying that you are guilty unless proven innocent and therefore we are going to restrict the type of gun you can own and the size of the magazine that you can own. How far should we take this argument to limit what people can and can’t have and do? How does it affect you for me to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine?

andyandy

Because the same lax gun laws which allow you to have these psycho military weapons also allow people more unhinged than you to have them, that’s why. If you get to have them, so do the Aurora and Sandy Hook killers.

NOBODY should be allowed to have AK’s and AR15’s. Except the military and law enforcement.

The very fact that you would want to own a weapon like that is prima facie evidence of emotional problems, and should preclude you from owning them.

Enlighten me. Why in the world would you want to own something like that? Which school are you planning to shoot up?

BigD

So basically your argument is that if someone could use something in an irresponsible or illegal manner than no one should have access to it. You should take a look around your house and see what you have that someone could use to commit acts of violence and work to create laws to ban whatever it is. Guilty until proven innocent.

I have no plans to shoot up anything. The very fact that you believe that anyone who wants an AR–15 wants to shoot up a school says a lot. Again, guilty until proven innocent. I’m glad that at least you feel those in law enforcement are responsible enough to own such weapons. After all no law enforcement officer would end up shooting innocent people…oh wait, that has happened recently.

andyandy

BigD: “So basically your argument is that if someone could use something in an
irresponsible or illegal manner than no one should have access to it.”

I didn’t say that, you did. I can speak for myself. Which I just did.

If you think you need an assault rifle, and have a different rationale than good old fashioned mental illness, I’d like to know what it is.

And yes, I’d like to take away your rights to own such a thing, or a nuke, or an RPG, or a sawed off shotgun.

If you have no plans to shoot up anything, why do you need such a deadly weapon. How are you different from James Holmes? You just want us to trust you, right.

Sorry, cowboy, I DO NOT TRUST YOU WITH AN AR15. I think it should be taken away from you.

Period.

jayreadyjay

So what you appear to be saying that if someone could use something in an irresponsible or illegal manner and you don’t trust that they won’t, they shouldn’t have access to it.

andyandy

Not quite. I’m saying have no more reason to trust you and BigD with and assault rifle than I had to trust James Holmes with one.

Why should I?

bleeth

Do you even know what an assault rifle is?

I love it when those of you that have no knowledge of the technical aspects of rifles think you have the right to dictate to me what guns I should be able to own or be trusted with.

holyreality

I’m late to this party but here goes.

Andy, your logic is certainly solid so long as our civil societal order remains.

But over the past decade we have seen instances when it does not remain civil, nor orderly. It may not take a perfect storm, or other act of god, but a breakdown of law and order WILL leave you vulnerable to criminal violence.

The cops may be a mere 20 minutes away if your phone works, but when you are on your own, and a gang of thugs are advancing on your loved ones, an AR15 with a 100 round magazine will make a difference.

Hypothetical narratives come across as outlandish fantasy, using a gun to shoot another person is a terrible terrible thing, but meeting someone who needs killed can happen.

Blanket statements such as, “The very fact that you would want to own a weapon like that is prima
facie evidence of emotional problems, and should preclude you from
owning them.” only project your own shortcomings of the big responsibility of owning a weapon, thus if you cannot bear the burden nobody else shall be allowed to.

Evan Todd, a survivor of Columbine, (you remember Columbine?) said this- “The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault
weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994
until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two
fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The
assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other
thirty-something laws that they broke. Gun ownership is at an all time
high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by
ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all
time low.” I have more respect for the words of a survivor of one of our nations worst assaults than the words of bleeding hearts. Go, Evan Todd!

MikeD

“The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”

And neither does the law against robbing banks deter bank robbers. I guess we can get rid of that stupid law.

“Gun ownership is at an all-time high.”

We must remember the NRA statement: “Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.”
Simple math gives us the following statement: “The more guns people have, the more people will be killed with those guns.”

toohip

. . and speed limits don’t stop speeders. This absolute argument never works, that we shouldn’t do anything or pass any controls or regulations because they won’t completely work or make serious impacts. The life of one six year old, I believe the majority of people, including reasonable gun ownes, is WORTH, denying a gun nut his right to have a 100 round AR-15 magazine.

BigD

Banning assault weapons will not stop or even reduce gun violence they may have some influence on the type of gun that’s used, mostly in crimes of passion. I thought that the whole reason for these restrictions was to address gun violence. The arguments I see put forth by gun control advocates make no sense unless you’re talking about taking all guns out of the hands of all citizens. In addition the argument that “speed limits don’t stop speeders” makes no sense (nor does the argument that “the law against robbing banks doesn’t deter bank robbers.”). Laws against murder are already on the books just like laws against speeding and robbing banks. A better analogy would be that we should limit the type of car people can have so they can’t speed as much, or we should require that people can only use drive throughs to limit bank roberies.

Dano2

Banning assault weapons will not stop or even reduce gun violence

Good news! They – according to this logic – have an effect.

We can reverse the law the NRA bought with no harm done!

Well argued. Thanks!

Best,

D

BigD

I think you got that a little backwards.
They – according to this logic – have nearly no effect.

We can reverse the law the NRA bought with no good done!

Well argued. Thanks!

Best,

BigD

Dano2

Yes, thank you. The NRA bought laws that we do not need. They are not enshrined in the constitution. A good place to start is there.

Good to go.

Best,

D

jayreadyjay

But you are looking to have different speed limits for different type of vehicles on the road or ban any and all vehicles from being on the road.

thor

Two things: 1. Comparing bank robbers to Columbine doesn’t wash. Speeding is also unlawful, so is hijacking an airplane or burglary. I guess we should get rid of those laws too. Or, we can realize that passing a feel good law in the moment of emotion is not a good policy. 2. Your simple math doesn’t add up. Most of the 200 million guns are in the hands of law abiding people. They are used to hunt, for sport or collect. They were acquired legally. Most criminals don’t acquire guns legally. The boys who killed in Columbine got someone old enough to buy the guns, yes. But they were used for an evil intent. And what about the bombs they set. They are illegal also. But the boys were angry and acted irrationally. The assault weapons ban didn’t help, but an armed guard and several armed teachers might have.

jayreadyjay

And yet when we look at statistics, we find that gun homicides peaked in 1993 at a little over 17,000 and in 2010 came in at 8775 a decrease of 48%. I think you need to remove the quotation marks around your statement since it simply isn’t true.

MikeM

“…gun homicides peaked in 1993…”

Homocides account for only a relatively small percentage of gun deaths. Most gun deaths are caused by guns kept and/or born by law abiding citizens…accidents, domestic violence, suicide, negligence, etc. Total gun deaths are increasing every year. And that doesn’t even include guns stolen from law abiding citizens resulting in death or injury.

Dano2

That’s correct – looking at statistics tells us that gun deaths in this country have risen every year since 2000 after a long decline after lead removal from gasoline,

Projections indicate that gun deaths in this country will surpass auto deaths next year.

The sane and civil society demand changes in gun laws. They are coming.

Best,

D

jayreadyjay

As I said before, Dano, watching you on the boards is like watch a pigeon on a chess board. You strut all over the board making a mess and then walk around like you have accomplished something. I dont buy the babble from the extreme left about leaded gasoline and violent crimes. I attribute the decline in violent crimes to us locking up violent criminals with mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, your comment about projections for gun deaths are just that …projections and what I saw was 2015 not 2014.

jayreadyjay

Homicides only account for about 1/3 of the deaths. Most come from suicides (75% in Colorado). But gun deaths that are domestic violence are included in homicides. Accidents, negligence etc. are relatively small (less than 10% of homicides). And gun deaths that are homicides that are from stolen guns are also included in the category homicides. I thought the left was for assisted suicides so why are you including gun deaths that are suicides and acting like it’s something we need to address?

bleeth

Well said.

toohip

The only “assault weapon” the Columbine shooters used was a Tech9, which is highly ineffective, and autopsies was used in very few of the deaths. They were also acquire illegally, not by the underage shooters. The killers also tried to use bombs which failed, but their firearms proved more effective – discounting the “other inanimate objects” arguments that are used to kill people. Yes, gun ownership is at an all time high – because we allow it (check out the rest of the world) and we pay the price for this “freedom.” I think you’re being very shameful and intolerant to suggest that mass killings of students from teenagers to six year olds is being “exploited by ideologues and special interests groups” Really, thor! You’re that desperate in your pro-gun arguments to make an outrageous statement like that? Ask the parents of these student victims if they believe the deaths of their kids are being “exploited.” Shame on you, thor. . you’re bigger than this!

jayreadyjay

I think you’re being very shameful and intolerant to suggest that mass killings of students from teenagers to six year olds is being “exploited by ideologues and special interests groups” Really, thor! You’re that desperate in your pro-gun arguments to make an outrageous statement like that?

Recognizing irony in your postings is not your strong suit.

reinhold23

Joseph missed the lecture discussing the difference between acceleration and velocity.

toohip

you’re confusing them with physics!

peterpi

Not necessarily. Will a one-horsepower engine get a Hummer from Castle Rock to downtown Denver in less than 3 days, LOL?

toohip

ah, yes, Joseph Ferri is trying out the standard tried and failed “straw man” arguments of the gun idolaters. That the citizens should be able to own military style weaponry because our government security forces do! This is “code” for weaponry needed to defend against an oppressive gov’t (read: you have to pay taxes and be tolerant to others) – who have F-22’s, aircraft carriers, nuclear missles, etc. (some people still believe “Red Dawn” is an omen!). And Joe has created a new straw man argument, that has no basis, but plenty of feigned hysterics for the gunnies. . . the debate over firearm “calibers????” I didn’t realize there was a proposal to ban certain “calibers” of ammo? Joe can own a .50 caliber sniper rifle able to shoot through cinder block walls or 12 gauge shot gun slugs or .700 caliber elephant hunting ammo. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061209105553AAy3YAe
I guess the Post was desperate to throw in a contrasting gun control argument, and Joe was the only one who sent one in recently?

peterpi

I think I see what Joe was getting at: All sorts of local, state, and federal LEO types use firearms with high-capacity magazines, and for the most part, don’t cause any harm.
But, …
The Social Security Administration?
Those nice folks that collect FICA and disburse retirement, disability, and SSI payments? I’m on Social Security Disability, and in intake interviews, re-assessment interviews, visits with their medical experts, I’ve yet to meet a gun-toting Social Security Administration staffer.
Homeland Security? Sure. FBI? Sure. DEA? Sure. But, SSA? ROFL “OK, all you people, line up and be prepared to be frisked before we give you your checks! We mean business!”

Guest

The purpose of this letter is to state that members of the citizens group, the Tri_County
9/12 Association of Montrose County, Colorado, (TCAMC) believe that H.R.
437, otherwise known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, is unconstitutional
and we require that any debate, discussion or potential vote
must be immediately suspended.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United
States Constitution, makes it clear that this Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This
“Supremacy Clause” recognizes that any
component of the United States Constitution is the law of the land and must
be supported by the people’s
representatives in Congress without question or equivocation.

A singularly
critical part of the United States Constitution is the Second Amendment that clearly gives citizens the right to keep and
bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the citizens’ right
in this question on more than one occasion.

The
Second Amendment has come under attack by representatives in Congress who must first
affirm and oath to protect and defend the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear
that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States.”

By
signing on to a proposed piece of legislation such as H.R. 437 that attempts to
controvert the Supreme Law of the Land, it is clear that the representatives previously
swearing this oath have defaulted on their first responsibility of office.

As
citizens we have been given the right to “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” by the framers of the Constitution.
There is no debate about this. If the citizens cannot protect themselves by
exercising their second amendment rights, it is then the opinion of the members
of the TCAMC that we are no longer a nation of laws under the Constitution but merely
a nation of people with opinions. Therefore, any law created or conjured, or a discussion
by a representative or representatives made in violation of their oath of
office, would necessarily be null and void.

The
framers of H.R. 437 do not simply seek to ban “so-called” assault weapons. They
seek ultimately to control a person’s right to self-defense and to regulate a
person’s right to “life, liberty, and happiness.” The bill proposes:

“To regulate assault weapons, to insure the right to
keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes(AWB, 2013).

The
framers of the Constitution did not say that a person’s right to bear arms
would be “limited” or regulated in
any manner; alternatively, it says, “Shall not be infringed.” Further, according
to the definitions in H.R. 437, any weapon can be an assault weapon based upon
cosmetic alterations not affecting their one-pull, one-bullet function. The intent behind H. R. 437 is clearly
aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens and stripping them of their ability to
exercise their second amendment rights.

H.R.
437 is flawed both in content and intent. Further, the proposed Assault Weapons
Ban of 2013 cannot legally be allowed to move forward for consideration without
an Article
V Constitutional amendment process.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.